Imagine an app like Pokémon VR but instead of virtual pocket monsters it targets members of <outgroup> whose faces are detected by cadre smart phones, then tracked, flash mobbed and dealt with, for the crime of making members of <ingroup> feel unsafe.
Watching leadership supine and carefully uncritical of burning, looting mobs offers little confidence that they will stand in the way of this. After all only <outgroup epithet>s have anything to fear.
The submission is an implementation of a core task in computer vision. Your response is an appeal to vividness unrelated to the submission except in its recruitment of computer vision to sell the FUD.
If researchers getting good at something is sufficient priming to cause you to direct your imagination toward hyperbolically negative outcomes, the problem on your hands is a constitutional resistance to further progress in the research area.
In that case, challenging readers to produce arguments on the finer details of the narrative you've painted in support of the technopessimism is bad faith rhetoric.
I'm similarly unclear on what sort of response you expect.
There weren't many comments when I replied.
My criticism was tailored to a fairly specific phenomenon: asymmetrically imaginative doomsaying that appeals to a vivid vignette / sketch of an adjacent possible future featuring some hyperbolically elaborated extension of trending tech, like Flash Mob Gone Wrong[1] and Slaughterbots[2].
Watching leadership supine and carefully uncritical of burning, looting mobs offers little confidence that they will stand in the way of this. After all only <outgroup epithet>s have anything to fear.
Please tell me why this is an unlikely scenario.